NewDay Ltd · DRN-6018430

The complaint Ms B complains that NewDay Ltd terminated her credit agreement. What happened Ms B held an Aqua credit card account with NewDay. The account fell into arrears. NewDay sent Ms B an income and expenditure form on 28 April 2025. Ms B contacted NewDay on 21 May to acknowledge receipt of the form and querying how to return it. The representative provided Ms B with the return address and applied a 30 day breathing space on the account. The representative asked Ms B to return the income and expenditure for by 20 June 2025. A Default Notice had been issued on 30 April 2025 which required payment of £66.57 by 21 May 2025. The Default Notice stated that failure to make the payment would result in the termination of the credit agreement. NewDay didn’t receive the required payment within the timescale specified and the account was terminated on 23 June 2025. NewDay received Ms B’s completed income and expenditure form on 8 July 2025. Following a review, a payment arrangement was put in place for £2.74 per month. NewDay sent a letter to Ms B advising her that her first payment was due on 7 August 2025. No payment was received and the arrangement was cancelled. Ms B contacted NewDay on 9 September 2025. She was unhappy that her account had been closed. She said she hadn’t been able to access the app and hadn’t been able to make her payment. She said she didn’t think she’d been given enough support given her mental health issues, which she’d previously made NewDay aware of. NewDay issued a final response on 8 October 2025 in which it said it wasn’t upholding the complaint because it hadn’t made an error. It confirmed that considering Ms B’s circumstances it had agreed a new payment arrangement on 9 September 2025 for £2.74 per month and that the first payment had been received on the same date. Ms B remained unhappy and brought her complaint to this service. She feels that NewDay has missed the point of her complaint and failed to take account of her vulnerability or provide the support she needed. Following the referral of the complaint to this service, NewDay made an offer to resolve the complaint. It said that because it hadn’t addressed the issue of Ms B not being able to access the app, it was offering her £50 by way of apology. Ms B declined the offer and said she didn’t think it adequately compensated her for the distress and inconvenience she’d suffered. Ms B said that NewDay’s requirement that she had to call them to reactivate her app access was unreasonable and failed to consider her vulnerability. Ms B said the inability to access the app prevented her from making payments

-- 1 of 3 --

which caused her distress and resulted in the cancellation of her repayment plan and the closure of her account. Our investigator didn’t uphold the complaint. They said that although Ms B had experienced some issues with the app and wasn’t able to communicate easily by phone, NewDay had provided alternative payment methods and alternative methods of contact. The Investigator said the payment of £50 to compensate Ms B was fair and reasonable. Ms B didn’t agree so I’ve been asked to review the complaint. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. I know it will disappoint Ms B but I agree with the investigator’s opinion. I’ll explain why. I’ve read and considered the whole file, but I’ll concentrate my comments on those points which are most relevant to my decision. The rules of this service allow me to do this. If I don’t comment on a specific point, it’s not because I’ve failed to take it on board and think about it, but because I don’t think I need to comment on it in order to reach what I think is the right outcome. Ms B’s complaint centres on the closure of her account and the difficulties she’s experienced with the app. She says that NewDay has failed to make reasonable adjustments to take account of her vulnerability. I’ve reviewed the history of the account. I can see that the account had fallen into arrears by April 2025 when the Default Notice was issued. Prior to this, the last payment to the account had been made in January 2025. The Information Commissioners guidelines state that lenders may default an account where there are three months of arrears. The history of the account shows that Ms B didn’t pay the sum required in the Default Notice within the timescale specified and accordingly the credit agreement was terminated on 23 June 2025. Having reviewed the information leading up to the Notice of Default, I’m satisfied that NewDay correctly defaulted and terminated the account. Following termination of the credit agreement, I can see that Ms B contacted NewDay and set up a payment arrangement to repay the balance on the account. I’m aware that Ms B had some issues making payment via the app in August 2025 and therefore missed the first payment due under the payment arrangement. Ms B has said that being blocked from using the app caused her to miss payments and led to her account being closed. This isn’t correct – as I’ve explained above, the account was terminated several weeks prior to the payment arrangement being set up. It’s clear from what Ms B has told this service that she wasn’t able to access her app, which was her preferred way to make payments. NewDay has sent this service information which shows that it hadn’t blocked Ms B’s access to the app at this time. I appreciate that Ms B disputes this. But even if NewDay had blocked Ms B’s access to the app, I can see that NewDay had sent a letter to Ms B when she set up the payment arrangement which confirmed the arrangement and set out all the different options for making payments, which included bank details to make a payment by bank transfer. Ms B has been clear with this service that communication by telephone is difficult if not impossible for her. So I understand why she felt frustrated and distressed when NewDay

-- 2 of 3 --

asked her to call customer services to have the account unlocked. I’ve reviewed the screenshot of the pop-up message that Ms B received when she tried to use the app and this does refer to contacting customer services by phone, but it also says that customer services can be contacted by post. I appreciate that this method is slower, however, it was an option available to Ms B. It’s not in dispute that Ms B had spoken to NewDay about her personal circumstances. However, based on the information I’ve seen, I haven’t found any evidence that Ms B advised NewDay that she wasn’t able to communicate by telephone. Ms B had spoken to NewDay by telephone on a number of occasions. So whilst I appreciate that Ms B’s personal circumstances changed from time to time, and that there may have been times when she felt unable to use the telephone, I haven’t seen any evidence that NewDay was made aware of this. I’m therefore unable to say that NewDay failed to make reasonable adjustments for Ms B by not requiring her to telephone them, because they hadn’t been made aware that Ms B wasn’t able to use the telephone, and they had spoken to Ms B by telephone previously. NewDay has acknowledged that it failed to address the aspect of Ms B’s complaint which related to her being unable to access the app in its final response. It has offered £50 as a goodwill gesture by way of apology for any distress and inconvenience caused. I’m satisfied that this is a fair and reasonable offer and therefore I won’t be asking NewDay to do anything further. I’m sorry to hear that Ms B has experienced ongoing issues communicating with NewDay. She’s told this service that NewDay still requires her to contact them by telephone. This service has asked NewDay if there is another way in which Ms B can contact them. NewDay has provided a copy of an email it sent to Ms B on 23 December 2025 which provides an email address for a specialist team which will be able to assist Ms B with any queries regarding her account. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold the complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms B to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Emma Davy Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --